States accuse feds of defying court order on school mental health grant cuts

The Education Department said it was waiting on the court's clarification and hasn't fully derived a plan to terminate the grants.(CN) — A coalition of 15 states asked a Washington state federal judge Tuesday to stop the Education Department from canceling millions in school health grants after a temporary restraining order was granted in July.During a plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction hearing, U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson questioned the Education Department’s argument that the only avenue for grantees to challenge terminations is through the Court of Federal Claims, not lower courts, while also arguing the department has not come up with a “clear, concrete” plan about the terminations and therefore must wait for agency action before bringing the challenge.“So, there is no venue in which the plaintiffs can seek declaratory, injunctive relief with respect to any of these policies we’ve talked about today?” asked the Joe Biden appointee.“Jurisdictionally, no,” said Department of Justice attorney Brian Kipnis. “The court doesn’t run the Department of Education.”Kipnis emphatically told the court the department hasn’t determined a final agency action or outlined a plan for how grant terminations would be decided.“The department has gotten no farther than asking this court for clarification as to whether terminating a grant would violate this court’s injunction,” he said.“All that there was at that point was a concept, an intent, a discussion about doing this, and that’s why they don’t have any evidence of one,” he said about the states’ case.The Education Department asked the court for clarification in June about Evanson’s order restricting it to non-continuation rather than termination, which the department argued is guided by a separate provision.The coalition of states initially sued the department last year after it moved to discontinue roughly $1 billion in school mental health grants. Evanson blocked the move in December and ordered the agency to reinstate the grants.The injunction required the department to reconsider each grant using proper regulatory procedures and to base decisions on actual performance data rather than political preferences — namely adherence to the Trump administration’s views on diversity, equity and inclusion.However, after the department announced its intent to terminate the grants again and asked Evanson to clarify her court order, the coalition of states filed a new lawsuit requesting a temporary restraining order to block the department from cutting funding again.Ellen Range, attorney for the plaintiff, strongly disagreed with the department’s characterization that it had no termination plan and cited notices to grantees about stopping funds for next year, as well as grant guidance from the department’s webpage, as evidence.Kipnis argued the department’s webpage guidance didn’t “obligate” it to follow what it says when making a termination plan.Jennifer Chung, attorney for the plaintiff states, said the harm of the terminations, even with the temporary restraining order in place, is already happening.“School has already started or is starting soon, and they need to know how much funding is available for full semesters,” Chung said.“This is affecting hiring for mental health staff, recruiting graduate student interns and ultimately affecting whether mental health services will be available in public schools within plaintiff states,” she said.Additionally, Chung, an attorney with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office, said the department ignored the General Education Provisions Act and federal civil rights law when claiming challenges of the terminations could only be heard in the Court of Federal Claims, and if the department terminates the grants without judicial review, it will act unlawfully.During oral arguments, counsel and Evanson were confused about whether grantees had received funds after the midyear July 31 cutoff.Range, also with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office, explained grantees received grant award notices through the end of the year but haven’t been given money yet, except for a one-month continuation by the department while the court clarified its stance.The grant programs at issue were created by Congress in 2018 and 2020, spurred by episodes of devastating school shootings. The multiyear grants are intended to address the shortage of school-based mental health service providers in low-income schools and to permanently bring 14,000 additional mental health professionals into U.S. schools that need them most.In their first year alone, the programs provided mental and behavioral health services to nearly 775,000 elementary and secondary students nationwide, and they have resulted in a 50% reduction in suicide risk at high-need schools, decreases in absenteeism and behavioral issues and increases in positive student-staff engagement, the states claimed.In February of last year, the Education Department issued what it called a “Directive on Grant Priorities,” announcing it would review all existing grants based on current administration policy preferences. By April, most grant recipients in the plaintiff states received notices that their funding would be terminated.Evanson took the motion under submission and said she would publish an order soon.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads